| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BazBoy
Joined: 11 Sep 2014
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
The Reveiw which supporter’s mostly likely know a small portion had change’s in coaching and admin but one constant was Nathan stayed in role as senior coach
What were and how strongly were words said to Nathan in regards to his need to improve the side and get it into finals
If I were to have to make an uneducated guess it would have included to be more flexible and prepared to listen to advise from the new group we went and employed to assist you
_________________
I'm not arguing--just explaining why i am right |
|
|
|
 |
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| As above, the review has led to changes to the coaching and development structures, the only constant being Buckley and Harves and Rivers coaching the VFL side. There are subtle changes around the club this year including a more relaxed attitude from Buckley, who wasn't panicking like the rest of us after two games. There's still a long way to go to get us up the ladder, but whether Buckley is the head coach, or it's someone else, doesn't alter what we have to do to rise up the ladder where we belong. |
|
|
|
|
scoobydoo
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | scoobydoo wrote: |
The part where you write “we all know” in completely wrong . You don’t know
And in fact are not even close. As Most on here |
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but we'll have to agree to disagree then because if your mind is closed there is not much I or others can do about it - it's a simple as that. |
Actually your wrong again maybe coz your guessing again.
If you don’t know just say so, don’t make out like you do when you don’t.
And that’s not an opinion |
|
|
|
|
Damien 
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I find it quite amusing, the use of the word ‘sacrifice’ in regard to Steele’s game on Friday night. I reckon most players would happily ‘sacrifice’ their game for 43 touches every week. Playing on a good Midfielder like Sloane will take you to the ball everytime. Aish’s role should not be underestimated either. Many times they stood each side of Sloane and Steele was able to get the clearance.
A lot of robust discussion in this thread; but to answer the question on the title of the thread? Categorically Yes. I also think he’s taken a leaf out of Hardwicks book from last year and is listening to the guys that have been brought in around him. No proof. Just a hunch. Maybe Hocking and Longmuir are having a positive influence.
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | As above, the review has led to changes to the coaching and development structures, the only constant being Buckley and Harves and Rivers coaching the VFL side. ... |
Also Tarkyn. And (the newly arrived) Sanderson. And half of Rocca.
And Burns's departure forced one more change.
So perhaps quite a lot constant... Not that more change is necessarily better... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Damien wrote: | ...
A lot of robust discussion in this thread; but to answer the question on the title of the thread? Categorically Yes. I also think he’s taken a leaf out of Hardwicks book from last year and is listening to the guys that have been brought in around him. No proof. Just a hunch. Maybe Hocking and Longmuir are having a positive influence. |
The club as a whole seems to have taken the easy leaves out of the Richmond book, while arguably ignoring some of the more difficult and perhaps more important leaves.
Did Adams play on Mitchell at all in Round 1? |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^Dunno, but Melbourne shutdown Mitchell and got beat much worse than we did.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | The club as a whole seems to have taken the easy leaves out of the Richmond book, while arguably ignoring some of the more difficult and perhaps more important leaves.
Did Adams play on Mitchell at all in Round 1? |
In the post-match press conference after the Hawthorn game, Buckley said the following:
| Quote: | | "No, we had Adams, Sidebottom and Crisp on him at various times after quarter time. He's a good player. He gets his hands on the ball, wins stoppage, he's probably one of the cleanest ball handlers in the shoe box in the first 5 to 10 metres and he's proving to be a really good spreader to the next contest. We tried to curb his influence but we were unable to". |
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
Damien
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Damien wrote: | ...
A lot of robust discussion in this thread; but to answer the question on the title of the thread? Categorically Yes. I also think he’s taken a leaf out of Hardwicks book from last year and is listening to the guys that have been brought in around him. No proof. Just a hunch. Maybe Hocking and Longmuir are having a positive influence. |
The club as a whole seems to have taken the easy leaves out of the Richmond book, while arguably ignoring some of the more difficult and perhaps more important leaves.
Did Adams play on Mitchell at all in Round 1? |
You’ll need to clarify your statement mate. How have we taken the easy leaves?
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| scoobydoo wrote: | | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | scoobydoo wrote: |
The part where you write “we all know” in completely wrong . You don’t know
And in fact are not even close. As Most on here |
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but we'll have to agree to disagree then because if your mind is closed there is not much I or others can do about it - it's a simple as that. |
Actually your wrong again maybe coz your guessing again.
If you don’t know just say so, don’t make out like you do when you don’t.
And that’s not an opinion |
No not in the room with them so no I have never heard it from either Eddie or Bucks - but there is _no other logical explanation_ as to why Bucks has kept his job this long and Eddie is not one to break deals - so I'll bet my soul on it - how's that. And for all you know, I could be 100% right. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree - end of story.
And it's 'you're'
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | K wrote: | ...
Did Adams play on Mitchell at all in Round 1? |
In the post-match press conference after the Hawthorn game, Buckley said the following:
| Quote: | | "No, we had Adams, Sidebottom and Crisp on him at various times after quarter time. He's a good player. He gets his hands on the ball, wins stoppage, he's probably one of the cleanest ball handlers in the shoe box in the first 5 to 10 metres and he's proving to be a really good spreader to the next contest. We tried to curb his influence but we were unable to". |
|
I see. Thanks, Jezza. The question popped into my head because (speaking about tagging) Eade mentioned Adams. Eade said that when Mitchell has 28 possessions at half-time you need to make changes, and it's better Adams curbs him than getting 30 possessions himself ("not that he did that"), since Adams does not have great disposal skills. Come to think of it, if Adams was doing his job, you'd think it'd be obvious to people who watched... I mean, you'd at least see the two standing next to each other at one or two stoppages, right? [Roos also claimed that he watched the last quarter and saw no one on Mitchell at all. I'm not sure if he meant he watched Mitchell the whole last quarter, or he just watched the game in general that quarter.] |
|
|
|
|
scoobydoo
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | scoobydoo wrote: | | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | scoobydoo wrote: |
The part where you write “we all know” in completely wrong . You don’t know
And in fact are not even close. As Most on here |
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but we'll have to agree to disagree then because if your mind is closed there is not much I or others can do about it - it's a simple as that. |
Actually your wrong again maybe coz your guessing again.
If you don’t know just say so, don’t make out like you do when you don’t.
And that’s not an opinion |
No not in the room with them so no I have never heard it from either Eddie or Bucks - but there is _no other logical explanation_ as to why Bucks has kept his job this long and Eddie is not one to break deals - so I'll bet my soul on it - how's that. And for all you know, I could be 100% right. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree - end of story.
And it's 'you're' |
Actually I know your 100% wrong. You should just admit your guessing |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| scoobydoo wrote: | | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | scoobydoo wrote: | | The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | | scoobydoo wrote: |
The part where you write “we all know” in completely wrong . You don’t know
And in fact are not even close. As Most on here |
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but we'll have to agree to disagree then because if your mind is closed there is not much I or others can do about it - it's a simple as that. |
Actually your wrong again maybe coz your guessing again.
If you don’t know just say so, don’t make out like you do when you don’t.
And that’s not an opinion |
No not in the room with them so no I have never heard it from either Eddie or Bucks - but there is _no other logical explanation_ as to why Bucks has kept his job this long and Eddie is not one to break deals - so I'll bet my soul on it - how's that. And for all you know, I could be 100% right. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree - end of story.
And it's 'you're' |
Actually I know your 100% wrong. You should just admit your guessing |
Nope 100% right. And it's still 'you're' - learn to spell
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!!
Last edited by The Boy Who Cried Wolf on Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | ^^Dunno, but Melbourne shutdown Mitchell and got beat much worse than we did. |
The best way of beating Mitchell is we winning the ball before Mitchell winning the ball. The other way is having a good stopper to play on him like Levi Greenwood. I don't see the reasoning behind playing Nathan Jones on him who is an attacking mid himself. What happened to Vince playing on him which is what we were all speculating to happen? Goodwin obviously goofed but no one criticises him, yet when Adams, Treloar and Pendlebury fail to quell Mitchell, it's all Buckley's fault. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The Boy Who Cried Wolf wrote: | [quote="scoobydoo"][quote="The Boy Who Cried Wolf"][quote="scoobydoo"][quote="The Boy Who Cried Wolf"][quote="scoobydoo"]
The part where you write “we all know” in completely wrong . You don’t know
And in fact are not even close. As Most on here[/quote]
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but we'll have to agree to disagree then because if your mind is closed there is not much I or others can do about it - it's a simple as that.[/quote]
Actually your wrong again maybe coz your guessing again.
If you don’t know just say so, don’t make out like you do when you don’t.
And that’s not an opinion[/quote]
No not in the room with them so no I have never heard it from either Eddie or Bucks - but there is _no other logical explanation_ as to why Bucks has kept his job this long and Eddie is not one to break deals - so I'll bet my soul on it - how's that. And for all you know, I could be 100% right. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree - end of story.
And it's 'you're'[/quote]
Actually I know your 100% wrong. You should just admit your guessing[/quote]
Nope 100% right. And it's still 'you're' - learn to spell |
That's good information. How specifically do I make you have never heard it from either Eddie or Bucks - but there is _no other logical explanation_ as to why Bucks kept his job this long and Eddie is not one to break deals - so he or she'll bet his or her soul on it - how's that |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
